nlabs

Your missing the point of the analogy. The idea is focus on customer acquisition in a niche rather than trying to go big with VC funding/IPO. You could have just as easily replaced "Italian restaurant" with "local flower shop" or whatever.

that co-founder finder could turn out to be really useful.

1) 6 months

2) Applied last minute - No

3) no - going the bootstrap route investing 15k of my own money.

4) demo currently offline -will be up later.

patio11, I agree with you that bootstrapping is the way to to - the "Italian restaurant" software company

YC has connections, but in the end its up to you to make your startup successful. With your experience, you should be able to bootstrap yourself into a profitable software business. But this "Italian restaurant" style of a software company doesnt interest many VCs. Most VCs are looking for the next big thing.

Funny. Not going to apply again.

I applied soley for the validation. I really dont want to work in Mountain View

Sounds like you are at a point beyond where YC makes sense.

You speak truth python. YC is a good idea when you have your idea, and need some cash/guidance to get started. But once you have customers, even if your not "ramen profitable", you are beyond YC.

I wrote this data import module for my web app this morning. It reads csv and xls flat file data and imports it into by database and then displays a preview of the data to the user. If you have time please try it out and let me know any problems. Thank you.

Wow, thats a significant increase. Happy to hear that.

selection bias would only be a concern if you were trying make inference on all netflix customers (not just the ones that opt-in).

>> we are talking about the equivalent of the bank publishing the customer's driver's license information in a newspaper with their name obscured.

Its more like the DMV publishing driving record history with any identifying info removed, and then these people putting up some info on their driving record (along with identifying info) on a second website/db. Then someone can uses this second website (and the cross correlation algorithm) to id their record in the DMV publication and get more info on their driving record. Had those people not put any info on the second website their record could not be identified in the DMV publication.

Im not saying Netflix is innocent if they knew that such a cross-correlation algorithm existed. Im just saying that I dont want to live in society where a company can be sued for everything that can go wrong, atleast when that company is taking every precaution using state of the art knowledge. If netflix failed to hire db security experts to notify them on this possibility, then yes sue them. I dont know enough about db security to say if this hole was known when netflix launched the contest.

>>The bank reimbursed me in full. Nice.

Excellent advice patio11. Why you dont do a full time startup is beyond me. Let me know when you are available for consulting.

>>IIRC, they were warned about the fact that the second prize was revealing too much information, but went forward with it anyways.

I did not know that. That changes my opinion about Netflix acting in "good faith".

The argument I was making is rooted in my belief that in order to have a healthy environment for business enterprise, your legal system cannot be setup to punish innovation whenever something doesnt go as planned. There needs to be balance, i.e. for medical innovation the bar is higher than for movie ratings.

>>If they know that the information can be de-anonymized using publicly available information, have they really made a good-faith effort?

If your premise that Netflix knew the db could be de-anonymized is correct, then its not "good faith". Otherwise, Netflix could argue it did everything it said it would do in its TOS, and didnt foresee the hackers exploit. Whether that makes them liable or not is what Im asking. Im not a lawyer.

The reason the bank robbery example is irrelevant is banks say in their TOS that your money is 100% protected up to the FDIC limit. So, Netflix TOS said it would make its db internally anonymized, which it did. Clever cross-correlating made this not enough.

I agree that if Netflix knew the data could be de-anonymized then they are liable. Just like if I bank knows that an identity thief is the emptying a customers bank account and does not stop it, they are liable.

Sometimes you release people (sometimes murders) because of a thing called a constitution...a case where there is liability for NOT releasing the murderer.

Thats too bad. Sounds like an interesting research area.

Again, I reiterate: the bank robbery example is irrelevant. Netflix anomyized the data from within their own db. You need to cross-correlate with another db to de-anonymize.

A better example: a customer loses their drivers license/bank card and a thief finds it calls a bank to do transactions, using the info on the card to verify identity.

A bank can only do so much to protect their customers. If someone is willing to leave their info lying around, there isnt much that can be done.

they could incentivize it with reduced monthly rates.

ditto my above comment. If netflix says data will be collected and then anonymized in its TOS, and it does so, then it acted in good faith. If a hacker reveals a weakness and Netflix pulls the plug, should they be sued?

If yes, then how can companies innovate, when they will constantly fear liability?

>> Are you arguing in support of my point? Banks insure themselves against robbery precisely because they are held 100% accountable for it to the customer.

No, Im saying that your example was irrelevant. If netflix said in its terms of service that it would dutifully anonymize the collected data, then are they liable? If some hacker reveals a weakness and Netflix pulls the plug should they be sued?

>>If I am your bank and I make a "good faith" effort to protect your money from robbery, how am I liable if I am robbed of your money?

Banks take the precautions ahead of time (deposit insurance) against robbery-thats part of the "good faith" of protecting a users money. Nice try.

Maybe its somewhere in Netflix's terms of service that data on users movie preferences will be collected, however this information will be kept anonymous (as best as can be done by netflix).

Netflix Prize 3: How to create a meaningful database that is impossible to de-anonymize.

I agree. (although Id still rather see more engineering and less lawyering). Netflix does need to get people to opt-in.

Yes the issue is Netflix's liability. The reason it can be de-anomized is because people reveal more info in some other database (for example idbm) - if people willingly reveal more info in some other db, is that netflix's fault?

privacy issues dont necessarily need to be dealt with by lawsuits. Most lawsuits are about money.

good idea...opt-in and we can improve our recommendations to you.

People worried that some geek will find out they watched Who's the Boss reruns will miss out.